-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Star Trek (original)


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#61 of 89 Jason_V

Jason_V

    Producer

  • 4,657 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001
  • Real Name:Jason
  • LocationBothell, WA

Posted January 13 2013 - 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by younger1968 


Yes, there were episodes like mirror, mirror that look at a parallel universe, but it never talked about vulcan being destroyed.


That is true.  However, that episode and subsequent adventures in the Mirror Universe have an Alliance of races enslaving humanity and using humans as slaves.  In essence, even though humanity may be "alive" and there may still be an Earth (I don't think we ever know that for sure), but it is a radically different Earth.  More timeline talk: TNG's "Parallels" shows an alternate timeline where the Borg were successful in assimilating Earth.  Why is that not a problem for you in the same way Vulcan being destroyed in another timeline is a problem?


See, there WAS a reason for Vulcan to be destroyed.  More than one, actually.  The backstory is that Spock (a Vulcan) promised to say Romulus and miscalculated.  Badly.  Therefore, Nero sees Spock as the reason why Romulus and his family are gone.  In the end, this is a revenge story as well.  Eye for an eye and all that jazz.  Plus, by destroying Vulcan, there is an emotional connection with that planet and many fans.  It was a smart thing for Orci and Kurtzman (again, NOT Abrams since he received NO credit on the script) to show this is not the Prime Unuverse.


DS9 ran into a similiar problem.  They wanted to show the Dominion with a foothold on an established planet and thought about Vulcan for the emotional reasons, but nixed it.  Instead, Betazed got invaded.



Originally Posted by younger1968 


You are entitle to your opinion, but JJ Abrams took a huge risk with isolated diehard fans with his approach to the first star trek movie and subsequent release of the 2nd movie in May 2013. I am diehard star trek fan since i was a kid and even had the action figures, transporter, utility belt, etc.


Humbly apologies, but it's not just my opinion.  It's a fact backed up by canonical evidence in comics written by the movie writers and in the final result.


Those diehard fans, and I've heard from a lot of them, range from having rational problems with the movie to being silly.  JJ and Paramount did not make the movie for diehard fans.  Diehard fans abandoned Trek around the time of Voyager.  We were not enough to sustain the franchise.  So they had to create a bigger tent, which is the only smart, rational and educated thing to do.


Originally Posted by younger1968 

I will likely see the new movie, but from trailer and images it looks like the approach is an old rival that kirk did something too has come back with a grudge towards kirk and starfleet. This is similar to Kirk and Khan.


From a whopping 15 minutes of footage released and a handful of stills, you're able to deduce this is going to be a revenge movie in the vein of Khan.  That can be spoken for: parts of Star Trek IV, V and VI; Generations, First Contact and Nemesis; and WAY too many episodes to count across all the incarnations.  I don't see how this is a bad thing, to be honest.


Originally Posted by younger1968 

I am sure there are more, but the point is that Abrams could have taken characters from the above as part of the plot line for a film, except for Decker.


How do we know the new movie hasn't done that?  We don't know who Cumberbatch is actually playing.  It could be Khan.  It could be Mitchell.  It could be anyone.  That discussion, though is much better for the Into Darkness movie thread over in the movies section.



Originally Posted by younger1968 

Kirk and Spock meeting was a good plot, but the problem was there would be no way Kirk out of the academy would be given command of a ship. Kirk would have to work his way up the ranks via farragut/lieutenant, etc. There was no mention of the farragut in the movie, so the plot did not make sense to how Kirk can become a captain rate of the academy.


Now that is a logical and understandable problem for a lot of people in the movie.  Here's my counterpoint: when Pike beamed over to the Nero's ship, he put Spock in command and commissioned Kirk as first officer.  Afterwards, with the fleet destroyed and Spock having relieved himself of duty, Kirk was the senior officer.  And then, under his command, the Enterprise managed to save Earth and destroy Nero.  How was Starfleet supposed to have dealt with that?  "Gee, thanks, kid.  You did all this stuff and even saved your commanding officer, but we're  busting you back down to Ensign and reassigning you?"  I agree this is a problem in the movie, but I understand why it was done this way.


I respect that people have a problem with the movie and I applaud anyone who has seen it who has a problem with it?  Why?  Because you took the time to actually watch before saying you don't like it.  That makes conversations like this all the easier to have.  However, as I've stated in other threads  here for a while now, Trek had to evolve.  Like it or not, things had to change.  I didn't love every change made to TNG during it's run and in the movies (it's my first real-time Trek).  But I understand the costumes and sets and actors and stories had to change to keep with the times.  That's one of my biggest problems with Enterprise, which I've stated in the BD announcement thread.

But I like to think my Trek tent is big enough to TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, the new timeline, comics, books and video games.  If it's not, I'm removing myself from a universe that has entertained me for many, many, many years.


#62 of 89 younger1968

younger1968

    Screenwriter

  • 2,296 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 17 2008

Posted January 13 2013 - 11:16 AM

That is true.  However, that episode and subsequent adventures in the Mirror Universe have an Alliance of races enslaving humanity and using humans as slaves.  In essence, even though humanity may be "alive" and there may still be an Earth (I don't think we ever know that for sure), but it is a radically different Earth.  More timeline talk: TNG's "Parallels" shows an alternate timeline where the Borg were successful in assimilating Earth.  Why is that not a problem for you in the same way Vulcan being destroyed in another timeline is a problem? See, there WAS a reason for Vulcan to be destroyed.  More than one, actually.  The backstory is that Spock (a Vulcan) promised to say Romulus and miscalculated.  Badly.  Therefore, Nero sees Spock as the reason why Romulus and his family are gone.  In the end, this is a revenge story as well.  Eye for an eye and all that jazz.  Plus, by destroying Vulcan, there is an emotional connection with that planet and many fans.  It was a smart thing for Orci and Kurtzman (again, NOT Abrams since he received NO credit on the script) to show this is not the Prime Unuverse. DS9 ran into a similiar problem.  They wanted to show the Dominion with a foothold on an established planet and thought about Vulcan for the emotional reasons, but nixed it.  Instead, Betazed got invaded. Humbly apologies, but it's not just my opinion.  It's a fact backed up by canonical evidence in comics written by the movie writers and in the final result. Those diehard fans, and I've heard from a lot of them, range from having rational problems with the movie to being silly.  JJ and Paramount did not make the movie for diehard fans.  Diehard fans abandoned Trek around the time of Voyager.  We were not enough to sustain the franchise.  So they had to create a bigger tent, which is the only smart, rational and educated thing to do. From a whopping 15 minutes of footage released and a handful of stills, you're able to deduce this is going to be a revenge movie in the vein of Khan.  That can be spoken for: parts of Star Trek IV, V and VI; Generations, First Contact and Nemesis; and WAY too many episodes to count across all the incarnations.  I don't see how this is a bad thing, to be honest. How do we know the new movie hasn't done that?  We don't know who Cumberbatch is actually playing.  It could be Khan.  It could be Mitchell.  It could be anyone.  That discussion, though is much better for the Into Darkness movie thread over in the movies section. Now that is a logical and understandable problem for a lot of people in the movie.  Here's my counterpoint: when Pike beamed over to the Nero's ship, he put Spock in command and commissioned Kirk as first officer.  Afterwards, with the fleet destroyed and Spock having relieved himself of duty, Kirk was the senior officer.  And then, under his command, the Enterprise managed to save Earth and destroy Nero.  How was Starfleet supposed to have dealt with that?  "Gee, thanks, kid.  You did all this stuff and even saved your commanding officer, but we're  busting you back down to Ensign and reassigning you?"  I agree this is a problem in the movie, but I understand why it was done this way. I respect that people have a problem with the movie and I applaud anyone who has seen it who has a problem with it?  Why?  Because you took the time to actually watch before saying you don't like it.  That makes conversations like this all the easier to have.  However, as I've stated in other threads  here for a while now, Trek had to evolve.  Like it or not, things had to change.  I didn't love every change made to TNG during it's run and in the movies (it's my first real-time Trek).  But I understand the costumes and sets and actors and stories had to change to keep with the times.  That's one of my biggest problems with Enterprise, which I've stated in the BD announcement thread.  But I like to think my Trek tent is big enough to TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, the new timeline, comics, books and video games.  If it's not, I'm removing myself from a universe that has entertained me for many, many, many years. 

You make some excellent arguments. I am true and through trekkie that does not like how abrams and his crew have changed the direction. I realize that something had to be done to re-image the star trek brand, especially with the new generation of fans.The movie images/trailers/right up so far have been very evasive. I am drawing no real conclusion until i see the film.

#63 of 89 younger1968

younger1968

    Screenwriter

  • 2,296 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 17 2008

Posted March 10 2013 - 03:17 AM

i have both re-mastered and the original star trek on dvd. I find it hard to watch the original unmastered episodes, especially ones that have a great deal exterior shots. I decided to watch mirror, mirror episode with spock and his goatee.

#64 of 89 JoeDoakes

JoeDoakes

    Screenwriter

  • 1,847 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2009
  • Real Name:Ray

Posted March 11 2013 - 02:30 AM

i have both re-mastered and the original star trek on dvd. I find it hard to watch the original unmastered episodes, especially ones that have a great deal exterior shots. I decided to watch mirror, mirror episode with spock and his goatee.

Do you mean unremastered or unrestored? I think Paramount originally issued Star Trek on single disks that proably used the same transfers as they had for VHS. Then they issued Star Trek in restored complete seasons. Then they issued remastered complete seasons, based on the restored versions, that added some new special effects and did things like change the look of the planets. The blu rays have both the restored original broadcast versions and the remastered versions.

#65 of 89 Nebiroth

Nebiroth

    Supporting Actor

  • 737 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 2008

Posted March 11 2013 - 05:10 AM

That's right. The single-issue releases of the original series were in the very early days of DVD, and they did not go back to the original film elements or do any sort of restoration, so there was a very large amount of print damage, dirt etc evident. When DVD first started appearing the improvements in quality were almost entirely due to the fact that given the same source, DVD will always give you a better copy than VHS did and that was enough to be a selling point. As time went on, collectors accepted DVD quality as the normal standard and began to expect more, demand increased for DVD's taken from the highest possible source copy. The second wave of releases, the boxsets, were better but still not of the highest possible quality. Personally I prefer the original work; the new effects never felt quite right to me although I know a lot of people like them. I accept they are done in a sympathetic way but even so they always jar when they appear. I would also say that remastering is a bit of a misnomer. These episodes are editted and are in essence completely new works, since the original effects scenes are - for the most part - entirely removed and replaced. For myself I consider a work remastered when you create an entirely new master of the original work. That is all. It may also have extensive restoration, that is, restoring it to as close to the original pristine work - for example, removing things like dirt of film damage. The third wave of releases including BluRay, produced the highest possible quality reproductions of the highest possible quality originals, ie the original elements. But the main intent was to bring them up to par for high definition broadcast - not for DVD or BluRay. Star Trek was an obvious choice to attreact people into taking out subscriptions for high definition TV (and indeed, to buy the TV's themselves to watch it on). Moreover, the original series was made on film and thus the source material was also in high defintion. The glaring problem was that of the effects, which not only looked dated but also had much poorer image quality, due to the way the shots were made, using multiple overlays. As to the "re-imagined" Star Trek, I thought the movie was unrelentingly awful! Possibly the most ugly incarnation of the Enterprise ever seen with interiors that for some unknown reason had 23rd century technology apparently working on the same principles as a Victorian steamship, the only thing missing were the stokers shovelling coal.

#66 of 89 Jason_V

Jason_V

    Producer

  • 4,657 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001
  • Real Name:Jason
  • LocationBothell, WA

Posted March 11 2013 - 12:19 PM

This is all why it was a brilliant move to include the original versions of the episodes alongside the redone/remastered/reedited/whatever versions with the new effects.  CBS pleased everyone with the disc releases.



#67 of 89 PatrickGoodluck

PatrickGoodluck

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 163 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 2011
  • Real Name:Patrick

Posted March 11 2013 - 12:41 PM

Personally I prefer the original work; the new effects never felt quite right to me although I know a lot of people like them. I accept they are done in a sympathetic way but even so they always jar when they appear. I would also say that remastering is a bit of a misnomer. These episodes are editted and are in essence completely new works, since the original effects scenes are - for the most part - entirely removed and replaced. For myself I consider a work remastered when you create an entirely new master of the original work. That is all. It may also have extensive restoration, that is, restoring it to as close to the original pristine work - for example, removing things like dirt of film damage.

It's good to hear that someone else shares the same views as I do regarding this issue. It still bothers me to this day that the original sound effects were replaced or removed on the dvd remastered set. Why?! When I watch Star Trek now, I prefer to watch my uncut off-air recordings from cable which were recorded before it was tampered with. I don't have the BluRay set or seen the movie, so I can't comment on that... but I trust your views on this, Richard.

#68 of 89 TV_Fan

TV_Fan

    Second Unit

  • 286 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2008

Posted March 11 2013 - 01:23 PM

It's good to hear that someone else shares the same views as I do regarding this issue. It still bothers me to this day that the original sound effects were replaced or removed on the dvd remastered set. Why?! When I watch Star Trek now, I prefer to watch my uncut off-air recordings from cable which were recorded before it was tampered with. I don't have the BluRay set or seen the movie, so I can't comment on that... but I trust your views on this, Richard.

I feel the same way as well. I only have the original releases and have not seen the remastered releases. I have no interest in seeing the remastered releases. They are something entirely different from the Star Trek I watched when I was younger.

#69 of 89 Regulus

Regulus

    Screenwriter

  • 2,216 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 07 2006

Posted March 11 2013 - 02:17 PM

I have the Blu-Ray Sets of ST-TOS, which have both the Original and the Remastered Episodes. I have no preferences and watch both versions. Ditto with "Colorized" Movies. Several Movies i own have both versions, give me a handy "Backup" in case something happens to one of the disks. To each their own.

DVD Collection Inventory: TV Episodes - 36,333 :biggrin: ( 746 Series ) :biggrin: Movies - 2,395   :B)   Serial Chapters - 1,201 :B)


#70 of 89 AndyMcKinney

AndyMcKinney

    Screenwriter

  • 1,916 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 02 2004
  • LocationKentucky, USA

Posted March 12 2013 - 12:53 AM

Add me to the camp of people who prefer the original SFX. It's really too bad that Gene and Majel stole from the Star Trek film vault way back when just to make a fast buck with Lincoln Enterprises. If they hadn't, CBS could've re-composited the FX shots from the original elements. We might also have had a deleted scenes package (as on the Battlestar Galactica set), a collection of unused film trims, and maybe we could have even had the movie-length The Cage that Bob Justman and Herb Solow mentioned in their book (Paramount considered adding back in all the deleted scenes from it to be released as a theatrical and recoup some costs, before it was decided to do another pilot). Oh, what might have been! In some cases, the new effects are okay, but there are several episodes (probably the earliest-worked-on) where the CG looks way too "fake" and unconvincing. There are other instances where the new effects go beyond the original stated purpose of "being true to the originals" and take things a bit too far. Decker's ship in The Doomsday Machine looks nice, though I think they ruined the Doomsday weapon itself and made it a little too clean/defined. So, I'll stick with the original effects (on Blu-Ray, though) even with the lower visual quality. The show is a product of its time and should look like it. That's why I had no problem with the work done on Star Trek: the Motion Picture. They actually took the proper care to make all the new stuff look like it would have in 1979, and didn't do anything that would've been impossible with 1970s FX technology. Star Trek: Remastered, however, (IMO) crossed that line.

#71 of 89 younger1968

younger1968

    Screenwriter

  • 2,296 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 17 2008

Posted March 12 2013 - 01:11 AM

Add me to the camp of people who prefer the original SFX. It's really too bad that Gene and Majel stole from the Star Trek film vault way back when just to make a fast buck with Lincoln Enterprises. If they hadn't, CBS could've re-composited the FX shots from the original elements. We might also have had a deleted scenes package (as on the Battlestar Galactica set), a collection of unused film trims, and maybe we could have even had the movie-length The Cage that Bob Justman and Herb Solow mentioned in their book (Paramount considered adding back in all the deleted scenes from it to be released as a theatrical and recoup some costs, before it was decided to do another pilot). Oh, what might have been! In some cases, the new effects are okay, but there are several episodes (probably the earliest-worked-on) where the CG looks way too "fake" and unconvincing. There are other instances where the new effects go beyond the original stated purpose of "being true to the originals" and take things a bit too far. Decker's ship in The Doomsday Machine looks nice, though I think they ruined the Doomsday weapon itself and made it a little too clean/defined. So, I'll stick with the original effects (on Blu-Ray, though) even with the lower visual quality. The show is a product of its time and should look like it. That's why I had no problem with the work done on Star Trek: the Motion Picture. They actually took the proper care to make all the new stuff look like it would have in 1979, and didn't do anything that would've been impossible with 1970s FX technology. Star Trek: Remastered, however, (IMO) crossed that line.

I like the original series that i have on dvd. However, the images that were updated for the doomsday machine or naked time or ultimate computer, etc were very good. I think there will always be people that are on the fence as it relates to changing of the images.

#72 of 89 JMFabianoRPL

JMFabianoRPL

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 213 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 05 2013

Posted March 12 2013 - 05:45 AM

Well at least CBS offers the original and new versions, unlike a certain other space franchise which pretends that the original movies never existed. That said, what's the closing logo survival rate on these sets? (CBS, since taking over Paramount, has been notoriously bad at this)

CBS = Constantly Butchering Shows.


#73 of 89 Nebiroth

Nebiroth

    Supporting Actor

  • 737 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 2008

Posted March 12 2013 - 07:23 AM

This is all why it was a brilliant move to include the original versions of the episodes alongside the redone/remastered/reedited/whatever versions with the new effects.  CBS pleased everyone with the disc releases.

Strictly speaking, the BluRay releases. The DVD of the fully cleaned up and restored episodes featured only the replaced effects sequences; not the originals, even though they could have used the DVD functionality that lets a viewer sleect things like alternate views. This is exactly what has been done in the Doctor Who DVD's - you can elect to watch the as-originally-broadcast or updated-effects versions at will. That is the correct approach. The only way to obtain the fully cleaned up Star Trek but with original effects is BluRay. All DVD releases feature either unrestored episodes with original effects or cleaned up episodes with replaced effects. You cannot have both. And, indeed, Paramount took the first two sets of releases out of print, so if you did not already have either of those, you had to buy the third release - new effects only version.

#74 of 89 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Join Date: --

Posted March 12 2013 - 09:02 AM

"The City on the Edge of Forever" has an error on blu-ray. All of the shots of the tricorder scene are the remastered effects only. It does show the angles to change, but when you press it, nothing happens. They obviously intended on having the original effects, but made a mistake.



#75 of 89 Jason_V

Jason_V

    Producer

  • 4,657 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001
  • Real Name:Jason
  • LocationBothell, WA

Posted March 12 2013 - 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Nebiroth 


Strictly speaking, the BluRay releases. The DVD of the fully cleaned up and restored episodes featured only the replaced effects sequences; not the originals, even though they could have used the DVD functionality that lets a viewer sleect things like alternate views.

This is exactly what has been done in the Doctor Who DVD's - you can elect to watch the as-originally-broadcast or updated-effects versions at will. That is the correct approach.

The only way to obtain the fully cleaned up Star Trek but with original effects is BluRay.

All DVD releases feature either unrestored episodes with original effects or cleaned up episodes with replaced effects. You cannot have both.

And, indeed, Paramount took the first two sets of releases out of print, so if you did not already have either of those, you had to buy the third release - new effects only version.


Very true.  DVD has been off my radar for 5 years except in certain situations.  Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow.  Posted Image 



#76 of 89 younger1968

younger1968

    Screenwriter

  • 2,296 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 17 2008

Posted March 31 2013 - 05:59 AM

I will always be a trekkie fan. I just do not like what Abrams did with the brand. Yes, Star Trek needed to change or re-brand itself, but it has been at the defense of the diehard fans. I have watched the trailers for into the darkness and it looks good, but i am not sure i am going to go see it as does not spike much interest too me.



#77 of 89 Joel Fontenot

Joel Fontenot

    Supporting Actor

  • 643 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 1999
  • Real Name:Joel Fontenot
  • LocationBaton Rouge, LA

Posted April 04 2013 - 10:51 AM

Do you mean unremastered or unrestored? I think Paramount originally issued Star Trek on single disks that proably used the same transfers as they had for VHS. Then they issued Star Trek in restored complete seasons. Then they issued remastered complete seasons, based on the restored versions, that added some new special effects and did things like change the look of the planets. The blu rays have both the restored original broadcast versions and the remastered versions.

 

 

That's right. The single-issue releases of the original series were in the very early days of DVD, and they did not go back to the original film elements or do any sort of restoration, so there was a very large amount of print damage, dirt etc evident. When DVD first started appearing the improvements in quality were almost entirely due to the fact that given the same source, DVD will always give you a better copy than VHS did and that was enough to be a selling point. As time went on, collectors accepted DVD quality as the normal standard and began to expect more, demand increased for DVD's taken from the highest possible source copy. The second wave of releases, the boxsets, were better but still not of the highest possible quality. Personally I prefer the original work; the new effects never felt quite right to me although I know a lot of people like them. I accept they are done in a sympathetic way but even so they always jar when they appear. I would also say that remastering is a bit of a misnomer. These episodes are editted and are in essence completely new works, since the original effects scenes are - for the most part - entirely removed and replaced. For myself I consider a work remastered when you create an entirely new master of the original work. That is all. It may also have extensive restoration, that is, restoring it to as close to the original pristine work - for example, removing things like dirt of film damage. The third wave of releases including BluRay, produced the highest possible quality reproductions of the highest possible quality originals, ie the original elements. But the main intent was to bring them up to par for high definition broadcast - not for DVD or BluRay. Star Trek was an obvious choice to attreact people into taking out subscriptions for high definition TV (and indeed, to buy the TV's themselves to watch it on). Moreover, the original series was made on film and thus the source material was also in high defintion. The glaring problem was that of the effects, which not only looked dated but also had much poorer image quality, due to the way the shots were made, using multiple overlays. As to the "re-imagined" Star Trek, I thought the movie was unrelentingly awful! Possibly the most ugly incarnation of the Enterprise ever seen with interiors that for some unknown reason had 23rd century technology apparently working on the same principles as a Victorian steamship, the only thing missing were the stokers shovelling coal.

 

That's not at all correct or accurate about the original single disc DVDs.  They were absolutely remastered from new transfers. 

 

Certainly there was not the same level of restoration work as the later "remastered" HD-DVD/Blu-rays with the new effects, which came from new scans of the negatives, digitally cleaned up, and re-color timed.  But most assuredly new at-the-time film transfers and not the same transfers as the VHS (and the Laserdisc releases, btw) from the mid 80's.  Those first DVD sets had much better color saturation, was much cleaner, and where better resolved than any previous VHS/laserdisc release. 

 

If they did simply dump the old analog 80's transfers to DVD back in 1999, there would have been screams and howls right here on this forum at the time (and there weren't - I was here then).  And, trust me, old analog transfers don't look better on DVD.  Just check out any of the DVD releases of The Quiet Man before Olive finally released a half-decent DVD and Blu-ray version last month, all the older ones are from the same transfer done for the 1994 VHS and laserdisc 40th Anniversary release (a good 10 after the ones for Star Trek were done for the last set of VHS/laserdisc issues) and they all look like fuzzy mush - exactly as the VHS from '94 does.

 

I have several of the Star Trek TOS laserdiscs that I used to compare with the DVD issues once I started buying them (and I bought all 40 of the DVDs, while I only managed to by about 8 of the laserdiscs).  The difference was much greater in clarity and image quality than what could be accounted for in just a change in format.

 

Are those first single disc DVD issues perfect? 

 

No. Of course not.

 

There were editing problems with a few episodes missing a few short scenes, the color could get a bit over-saturated at times (i.e., the red uniform shirts), and the remixed sound did have issues too, here and there.  But it was the first time we finally hear the original song, "Goodnight, Sweetheart", in a home video release of "City on the Edge of Forever".  And, I'm sorry, but print damage and dirt was not that much of an issue at all with these DVDs either - other then the printed-in dirt and such in the original optical effects shots (but they are there in the Blu-ray, too).

 

And then, of course, Fox showed Paramount how to do TV on DVD right in 2000 by releasing "The X-Files" as full season sets.  But Paramount had already committed to 2 episodes per single disc releases (as they did with the laserdiscs).

 

I did sell off my entire DVD collection after I got all 3 season sets of the Blu-rays, though.


Joel

#78 of 89 younger1968

younger1968

    Screenwriter

  • 2,296 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 17 2008

Posted September 15 2013 - 12:34 AM

I am a huge Star Trek fan ever since i was a kid. I used to get Star Trek TOS on Spacecast.ca, but it has been removed from their playlist. It is too bad that spacecast has decided to focus on shows like Castle

 

It should be interesting to see what happens in the next 3 years as Star Trek will become 50 years old!. I would suspect another movie would be coming out or something special for Star Trek!!



#79 of 89 benbess

benbess

    Screenwriter

  • 1,824 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2009

Posted September 15 2013 - 02:59 AM

I am a huge Star Trek fan ever since i was a kid. I used to get Star Trek TOS on Spacecast.ca, but it has been removed from their playlist. It is too bad that spacecast has decided to focus on shows like Castle

 

It should be interesting to see what happens in the next 3 years as Star Trek will become 50 years old!. I would suspect another movie would be coming out or something special for Star Trek!!

 

Even before the 50th, I'd like for them to do a TV show. In fact, I'm puzzled they haven't up until this point. 



#80 of 89 Ethan Riley

Ethan Riley

    Producer

  • 3,358 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2005

Posted September 15 2013 - 09:53 AM

I am a huge Star Trek fan ever since i was a kid. I used to get Star Trek TOS on Spacecast.ca, but it has been removed from their playlist. It is too bad that spacecast has decided to focus on shows like Castle

 

It should be interesting to see what happens in the next 3 years as Star Trek will become 50 years old!. I would suspect another movie would be coming out or something special for Star Trek!!

 

I just hope they don't take four years between movies. That was ridiculous. Two years is about right. And anyway, is Abrams even doing the next one? Sounds to me like he's moved on to another galaxy, far far away, and I don't mean the Shrek Universe...


 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users